Mueller v. Allen (1983)
Supreme Court Decisions on Religious Liberty
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Background Information
Should a state government allow taxpayers to deduct expenses incurred due to "tuition, textbooks and transportation" from sending their kids to religious elementary or secondary schools? Minnesota did, but some taxpayers sued the state, arguing that this violated the Establishment Clause by providing financial assistance to sectarian institutions.
Court Decision
The Supreme Court decided 5-4 that the tax deductions were completely constitutional. According to the Court, allowing those deductions passed all three parts of the Lemon Test: they had the secular purpose of ensuring that chlidren are well educated, they did not have the primary effect of advancing the sectarian aims of nonpublic schools, and they did not "excessively entangle" the State in religion.
A primary argument of the plaintiffs was the fact that sectarian institutions were aided to a large extent, but the Court rejected this out of hand as sufficient reason to rule the law unconstitutional:
One fixed principle in this field is our consistent rejection of the argument that "any program which in some manner aids an institution with a religious affiliation" violates the Establishment Clause.
The Court did, however, believe that the purpose of educating children played a vital role in finding the law constitutional:
A State's decision to defray the cost of educational expenses incurred by parents - regardless of the type of schools their children attend - evidences a purpose that is both secular and understandable. An educated populace is essential to the political and economic health of any community, and a State's efforts to assist parents in meeting the rising cost of educational expenses plainly serves this secular purpose of ensuring that the State's citizenry is well educated. Similarly, Minnesota, like other States, could conclude that there is a strong public interest in assuring the continued financial health of private schools, both sectarian and nonsectarian. By educating a substantial number of students such schools relieve public schools of a correspondingly great burden - to the benefit of all taxpayers. In addition, private schools may serve as a benchmark for public schools
The Court accepted that sectarian schools benefited greatly, but the decision argued that because the deduction was open to parents sending children to both secular and religious schools, the assistance was technically neutral in terms of religion. The Court contrasted this with the decision in Nyquist, in which state reimbursment for tuition to only private religious schools was struck down.
The Court also argued that the government's responsibility for any Establishment Clause violations was greatly reduced by the fact that the parents themselves were making the decision of whether or not to send their kids to religious or secular schools:
It is true, of course, that financial assistance provided to parents ultimately has an economic effect comparable to that of aid given directly to the schools attended by their children. It is also true, however, that under Minnesota's arrangement public funds become available only as a result of numerous private choices of individual parents of school-age children.
Justice Marshall, in his dissent, rejected this argument. Marshall wrote that state support of religious education was impermissible, no matter whether accomplished directly or indirectly. Marshall considered it particularly important that the aid in question here directly supported religious education itself and not simply the general operation of a religious school, as would be the case with police and fire protection.
Marshall also made the point that the fact that parents who send children to secular schools may theoretically benefit could not alter the fact that religious schools are almost the only beneficiary and, hence, the deduction has the effect of advancing religion generally in the state:
...it is undisputed that well over 90% of the children attending tuition-charging schools in Minnesota are enrolled in sectarian schools. History and experience likewise instruct us that any generally available financial assistance for elementary and secondary school tuition expenses mainly will further religious education because the majority of the schools which charge tuition are sectarian.
Significance
Over the long term, this decision will play a big role in supporting the advancement of school vouchers which aid private religious schools. It was used as a key basis in the decision of Zelman v. Simmons which upheld an Ohio law that benefited mostly private religious schools.
This decision is based largely upon the principle that any law which aids religious instutitions alone or almost alone is permissible so long as secular institutions have at lest a theoretical chance at benefiting as well. Religion being the primary beneficiary is irrelevant. Lawmakers knowing in advance that religion will be the primary beneficiary is also irrelevant.
-->